They are using the, "I'll get the troops out of Iraq" ploy to get votes and not talking about stabilizing the region. It's a 'mob rules' tactic when the commanders are trying to get MORE troops there to get the job done better. They are talking about shame when the president said "Mission accomplished" four years ago. We DID oust Saddam and defeat his army. We did accomplish that mission so I don't know what they're talking about. There is a certain level we can achieve but if we stop now because 'we need to get the troops out' it'll be business as usual and the bad guys will win once again. I think we need to finish the job or wait until there's more stability. I've been there four times now and I know these people are worth it and it's worth it to help create stability there.
2007-05-01 17:35:43 · 14 answers · asked by madbaldscotsman 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I don't know if that's worse than encouraging the enemy or demoralizing our troops.
Either way I hope Bush vetoes their surrender bill.
2007-05-01 17:45:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, yes, but what can you expect from morons that think we should put a time limit on with drawing? The terrorists can just sit back and wait and then go in and slaughter the good people. Anyone should be able to figure that out, small minds here. Then you have the morons saying the war is lost. Really? Our guys over in Iraq still fighting have to be thinking, "geez, if that's true, why am I still fighting.
God bless America and shame on the people spouting off their mouths to the tune of really hurting America.
2007-05-05 00:57:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've thought that from the beginning. I have no idea how they've managed to spin the , "I oppose the war, so let's keep it going for a while," position as a good thing. The last time I checked, if you oppose something, you're not supposed to support it or pay money for it.
Reid's the worst of the lot. He actually thinks we should fund a war that we've lost. That seems to me to be a far cry from supporting the troops.
That's why I have the respect I do for Kucinich. He says that he opposes the war, and then has this wierd idea of reflecting that in his vote. I might disagree with him, but at least I can respect him. He rose out of the see of congressional democrats to actually have some conviction.
2007-05-02 01:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think we should get the troops out because it's virtually impossible to prevent insurgents from creating chaos. Like you said, the actual ousting of Saddam has been done, quite easily. But you can't just go around putting down insurgencies...it reminds me of that arcade game where the gophers pop out of the holes and you have to frantically pop them with the mallet.
As far as stability in the region...I think stability will come to the region, whether it be a dictatorship, Islamic law, etc. once we leave. It seems that the people want to live under Islamic law, which isn't democracy. If that's what they want, they should have it. We're not going to create another Turkey (democratic Muslim country) over there. It's just a different way of life with a different political system. Western culture is compatable with democracy. Middle eastern Muslim culture is not.
We left Vietnam (finally) and that was the right move. Why isn't leaving Iraq the right move as well?
Plus, Europeans don't think we should be there. Why won't we listen to them?
2007-05-02 00:51:35 · answer #4 · answered by JC 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
The Republican talking points are "they want votes" but Bush did say "major combat operations have ended" that day. Yes Bush did win the WAR that day but the day after the OCCUPATION began and that is what American does not understand both on the left and right that this is not a war and we are not fighting the terrorist that attacked us on 911 we are fighting a civil war that was around before Saddam but his dictatorship was what kept them at bay and now it has resumed. Every goal has a time table just like Bush wanted from Clinton.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/pelosi-calls-out-bush-for-1999-statement-on-timetable/
2007-05-02 00:54:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No they are not making a mistake. They've done something very clever. by forcing Bush to use the veto in a democratic system, they have shown that although we are claiming to be instilling democratic values (one man, one vote) he is unprepared to live by those same values himself.
This completes a cycle. It's the debunking of the final lie. No WMD's, no threat, no credible link to Al quaida, and a flawed democratic vision.
There is no job to finish, because there never was a 'job description'. It's time to come clean and be strong enough to admit this entire adventure was an enormous mistake.
2007-05-02 02:27:07 · answer #6 · answered by j_f_sebastian82 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It would be a mistake for the Democrats not honor their pledge to their voters last election when they said they were serious about bringing change to this catastrophe.
That's the platform they ran on, that's what the people elected them to do, and if they ignore the will of the majority of Americans (according to national and party polls), they will have shown that they didn't mean business when they got elected.
2007-05-02 00:45:24 · answer #7 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe they are. The Democrats are betting the military will fail, but I have faith in the military winning the war. All the negative remarks about the war & the military will come back to haunt them. Pelosi & Reid are being set up as the Democrat's fall guys but it will not work.
Even if the worst happens & they do not win the war, the only people left to blame will be the Democrats.
2007-05-02 00:53:25 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Are you aware we have a full blown civil war going now. This is just the start of the blood shed. Just who do you kill in a civil war?. I support our troops get them home.
2007-05-02 01:13:11 · answer #9 · answered by lonetraveler 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The dems are making 2 mistakes they're dividing their party and they're dividing the country.
2007-05-02 00:39:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋